BuzzerBeater Forums

I understand little of the previous training system, but as I see it, part of the problem was with skills like inside shooting and having to play a guard out of position in a game to train in that area. Inside shooting for a Center is different than inside shooting for a guard--that is not to say guards can't learn post play. For the most part, however, I don't want or need to train my guards to shoot or position themselves like Centers; I want them to be able to make layups when they drive to the basket. That is a different skill set and I should not have to play my guards at the Center or forward position to "train" them to shoot a layup inside. The same holds true for inside defense, although less of a complaint here--good defensive technique doesn't vary as much; however, I want my guards to be able to defend other guards inside not learn to defend a post player; those skills aren't learned by playing out of position in a game in order to become eligible for the skill set--that is pure nonsense; same is true for having to play big men outside to train outside defense; an unnecessary distraction that adds nothing to the game for me.

And except for the economic issues--which are lost on me anyway, I'm befuddled by managers complaining about unexpected improvement by a player on their team. What coach doesn't want to see improvement in all areas by any player? Again, I don't understand the training system as well as most, but if the new system makes the training results more realistic, I'm all for it.

Training IS on a guard was no problem in the old system, 1-on-1 and JS for forwards give loads of pops in ISIS.

And what will happen when this SF has a salary of 100k(for example) and his worst skill is around 10? If you continue training him, you will have high sublevels, it happens when you train a SF, it always have high sublevels. You will be happy to watch he pops in JS or rebounds and next season paying him a bigger salary?

With a monoskilled training this system has 0 impact, with multiskilled SF you will have unpredictable(well not really, you will know what skills have high sublevels) skills poping up, when maybe you don't want.

Salary doesn't "pop" like skills, my friend. It increases little by little with every increase in skill, pop or no pop. Of course it jumps every season.
You do realize that training a SG during one full season in JR/JS/OD will, on average, increase his RB by 0.07 (like HD/DR/PA/IS/ID/SB)?
For example his RB will go from 18.95 (phenomenal) to 19.02 (colossal).
His salary will only be $ 200,248 instead of $ 200,000.

Is that too much?

edit: RB, not SB!

Last edited by Thelonious at 7/31/2011 4:18:20 PM

thats funny, those cross training up will affect their salarys by nothing - but ok you think also that when your inside attack hits no basket it have the reason that you play 3-2 and not the opposing defence.

As Knecht said you if you want to train the IS of an outside player with 1n1 or JS in SF-PF is really easy to do it.


If you guys want a training system where 1+1=2 then it's a really boring one. That's the direction, we go to an easy training system, next step is training the players individually because ''it would be more realistic''...


Being realistic doesn't mean it will be more funny i'll repeat you, that if you want something realistic go play 2k11 or try a chance being a coach.

Last edited by Marot at 7/31/2011 11:08:00 AM

That's not realistic.
Cross-training is.

That's good to know and something I had not noticed occurring with sufficient regularity to chalk it up to anything more than a training bonus; certainly nothing I'd count on--again, the reason for the mystery is lost on me, but apparently others enjoy it.

When I play a simulation, I'm not looking for simple (complex is good) just something that makes sense; the settings for training don't allow you to train IS for a guard without playing him out of position. There is nothing straight-forward about getting pops at IS when training 1on1. I have no problem with that occurring but it is no different than the random pops people are complaining about here. You should be able to train a player at the position you decide to play him at without guessing about settings. That results vary based on player coding, trainer ability, fatigue, etc. are understandable and that is where the variation should occur.

If anything, the randomness gives us more control, and will stop any of those kinds of noticeable developments that you talk about. As a result of it being random, it will tend to be spread out over time. Now if players had a hidden attribute, that determined where the 10% always went (for Pippen it might be passing) then it would be more interesting. But it's just not going to go one place often enough for players to feel like they have a "personality" to them. But the occasional pop will still be neat.

While I agree that there is some cross-over in training certain skills--and not to pick nits too finely here--improving skills such as outside defense is not likely to come from practicing free throws. I can see some cross-over between rebounding and defense, for example, because positioning is important in both; if you are playing good defense you're likely to be in position to keep your man off of the boards. You also learn physical play doing rebound drills which can help you to hold and improve your position in post play. I just trained free throws and had a player with a pop at outside defense; while I agree with the general theory of cross-training, some work could be done in the specific correlation between some of the skills.